Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, September 19, 2000

September 19, 2000

Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street

Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Civic Center Council Chambers.

Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present.

Regular Council Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2000, were amended on page 7, paragraph 11, line 2 to remove the duplicate word "come."

Study Session Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2000, were amended on page 3, paragraph 2, line 4 to change the word "campus" to read "community"; page 3, paragraph 9, line 2 changed "Johnson’s" to read "Jackson’s."

1. Mayor presented Retirement Plaque to Police Officer Ken Savage.
2. Presentation of check for $91,606.59 by Steve Vincent of Avista Corporation to City of Ashland for Solar Pioneer tax credit program.
3. Mayor read Proclamation for "Undoing Racism Day."

1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Mayor appointed Paige Prewett to the Conservation Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2003.
3. Confirmation of Mayor’s Appointment of Finance Director

Councilors Reid/ Fine m/s to move item 3 to New Business. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #2 & #3. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.



Tamara Henderson/132 S. Mountain Ave. #3/Associated Students of SOU Representative/Gave update of activities on campus and noted that more than 200 student voters have been registered. Classes begin September 25, 2000, and more than 1,000 new students are expected to attend.

Gene Brandon/540 Allison/Stated he had recently returned from living in Hungary where he was teaching English as a second language, and noted the absence of trees in Hungary. He voiced is regret at having that happen here, and encouraged the council to resist removing the trees at the library.

Bob Taber/97 Scenic Drive/Stated that of all the people he has talked to, regarding removal of trees at the library, none were aware of this eventuality. He asked the council to reconsider the impact that this project will have on the city and urged the council to delay the project for 60 days in order to notify people of impending plans. Shaw stated council did not make this decision that voters did in a 62% overwhelming approval. She feels that if the council voted the plan down, voters would be upset. Taber stated voters were not aware of the plan for clear-cutting twenty-two bushes and trees. Wheeldon questioned the council if the subject should be put on the agenda, which the council declined.



1. Mayor confirmed appointment of Lee Tuneburg as Finance Director.

Council discussed a resume included in Council Meeting packets, remarking on his twenty years of experience.

Councilors Reid, Fine m/s to accept Lee Tuneburg as Finance Director. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

2. Council Meeting Look Ahead.

Hauck noted the revised presentation of the Social and Human Services Element of the Strategic Plan has been e-mailed/ mailed to the council. Reid urged council to move the sustainable housing project to an upcoming agenda. Reid wanted to know more about the tree-removal Ordinance, asking where the idea originated. Shaw responded it came from the Hillside Inn development, approximately eighteen months ago. Scoles suggested that this issue should be reviewed at a Study Session and confirmed that the latest draft could be forwarded to the council, adding it was generated from the Tree Commission process.

3. Motion to dismiss Appeal to City Council regarding Oregon Shakespeare Festival Performing Arts Theater and Parking Structure.

City Attorney Paul Nolte clarified for the council that OSF is willing to waive the requirement for the decision to be made within the 120 days, if by delaying it another two weeks impacts the issue. Council agreed to move the motion to the October 3 meeting.

4. Update on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids Project.

Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that the primary concern is in regards to biosolids and requested direction from the council in order to move forward. She stated that, without directions from the council the project will face postponing work at the Waster Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). Brown noted that if disposal of biosolids at the plant is a possibility, redesigning the site would be necessary. She noted the phone calls received, and felt that there is a lot of misinformation being circulated.

Brown recapped the decision made in May: tertiary wastewater effluent would be returned to Bear Creek; and Class B biosolids, produced through a lime-stabilization process, would be pumped to the hillside, held in lagoons in the winter, and put on drying beds in the dry season producing a Class A fertilizer with land-application on-site.

She further explained 95% of all biosolids are land-applied, typically in liquid Class B form and although Class B is appropriate, the council decided to turn the effluent into Class A before disposal. However, based on this decision, it appears there are mistrust and unknowns both with land use and politics. Carollo Engineers were requested by staff to provide the council with alternatives and produced a 30-page research document, as well as the report included in the council’s packets tonight. Brown explained the land-application project is $3.5 million, with the alternative adding another $1.3 million if disposal stays on-site. This plan gives more flexibility, but is more costly, as the WWTP is closer to residential homes, and the expense does include odor control.

Robert Eimstad of Carollo Engineers explained there is a 90% design deadline with DEQ due very soon. Currently biosolids are unstabilized and are being de-watered with a temporary belt-filter press, which squeezes the water out of the effluent. The resultant material is then trucked to the landfill. This plan could continue indefinitely, and is outlined in Option Two. He continued to explain that de-watering unstabilized biosolids produces a large amount of ammonia and other odors. In the past, the plant stored stabilized biosolids, but now an unstabilized product is being produced. He has noticed a marked increase in odors. Disposal of this type of effluent could only be disposed of at the landfill. Other options are dependent on land-use approval, and acceptance from neighbors for the storage and application of biosolids.

Carollo Engineers presented a summary of developing alternatives: Option One uses the hillside for storage and drying; Option Two has continued landfill disposal of the unstabilized product; Option Three produces a Class B product on-site, giving a wide range of possibilities for disposal and Option Four produces a Class A product through lime stabilization and pasteurization. Other alternatives include composting (taking more land space than are available and producing significant odors), and autothermophilic aerobic digestion (mechanically intensive, expensive, and odor producing). Carollo recommended pumping the biosolids on the hillside, as it is the lowest cost option. If this is not a possibility, the best option would be to produce a Class B product, which allows for more options for disposal.

Brown stated lime-stabilization biosolids processing was an interim measure originally in order to save costs while looking at cost efficiencies. As money has already been spent using this process, maximization of current procedures has been reviewed. As a result, the centrifuge option has been discarded.

Eimstad explained centrifuge and belt-press procedures are for de-watering, not stabilization of biosolids. Reducing the amount of product, reduces hauling costs. Stabilization is attainable in a variety of ways, meeting federal regulations. Anaerobic digestion (which was used at the plant, but has been removed), aerobic digestion (which was used at the plant, but is now used for lime stabilization), and stabilization (which raises pH levels, breaking down the product at the cellular level in a way similar to anaerobic and aerobic digestion). He recommended continuing lime stabilization, producing a Class B product, de-watering through a centrifuge or belt-press, and hauling to a landfill or land application site.

Brown noted questions had been raised regarding Grants Pass’ wastewater plant and that they are currently land-applying, just like Ashland, and a temporary trailer-mounted belt press is being used. They are also going through the same discussion as to their next step, as no definite plans have been made.

Brown clarified for the council Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BSA) is only a transport mechanism for biosolids that they collect the biosolids and transport it to the Medford Regional Facility for treatment. Eimstad explained that biosolids are anaerobically digested, spread in facultated sludge lagoons and drying beds, and then resultant Class B materials are land-applied. Brown explained that if Ashland’s sewage was piped to Medford that it would be handled in the same manner as is planned by the City, adding that the materials are land-applied on farmers’ land, not land Medford owns. Brown confirmed that it is becoming more difficult to dispose of liquid effluent at disposal sites. Eimstad commented that the trend shows it is becoming more difficult to dispose of biosolids, of any quality, due to founded and unfounded public concerns. He felt that retaining flexibility when planning a WWTP is the key as it is difficult to predict where trends will go.

Brown clarified for the council that she was unaware of any infrastructure at Emigrant Lake that would allow for dumping. She further explained the City does not have industrial waste (medical toxins, etc.), as the waste stream is primarily residential. Eimstad explained the primary difference between Class A and Class B product is the number of pathogen killing of organisms, and further explained health risk studies are highly underdeveloped, adding wildlife is much more affected than humans.

Brown clarified for the council that 95% of biosolids that are land-applied have always been treated this way, and that she is familiar with Oregon and California, and they do land-apply biosolids, as it is the preferred option. Eimstad stated there are a variety of ways to dispose of biosolids: land-apply, landfill, and incineration. He explained that it is fairly common to have the site near a municipal boundary, and in most cases, it is because the city has encroached on the application site. Eimstad stated that he was unaware of any links to disease breakouts or public health problems associated with land-application sites, and noted that this is beyond his expertise. Eimstad felt that the State Health Department should speak for them regarding this practice. Brown noted that the agency that would govern this facility would be DEQ, and that DEG had not raised any concerns about land-application.

Brown stated that disposing of untreated biosolids is not her preference, and as the landfill has limited space, using the biosolids as day cover would require at least a Class B stabilization.

City Attorney Paul Nolte explained for the council that if the hillside is chosen, that there are three land-use permits possible. One of the permits makes the determination as to whether or not the site is for farm use, and could be appealed. He noted that the Department of Land Conservation and Development has expressed an interest, as well as the Department of Agriculture, and that both groups feel when a City applies fertilizer, it is not farm use. Those groups, as well as neighbors of the site, may appeal any approval by the county. Scoles explained that the calculation on costs for possible litigation, construction, demolitions and rebuilding at the plant, had not been done. Scoles agreed to determine these costs for a future council meeting.

Nolte responded to questions by the council, explaining the cases for the City of Dallas and the City of Ashland went to LUBA at the same time. The City of Dallas is using treated effluent for a poplar farm, and the issue asks whether it is necessary for the Board of Commissioners or the County to make a determination prior to using the site for disposal. He explained that LUBA responded that the County does have to make the determination and give an opportunity for a hearing.

Nolte explained that the decision on the determination of farm use, by the Board of Commissioners in Polk County to the City of Dallas, could affect the City of Ashland.

Nolte continued to note that there are two other permits available. One is for utility facilities necessary for public service, which would have more land-use issues than determining whether irrigation of farm crops is farm use. The additional permit available is a conditional use in farm-use zones. Nolte explained that a solid waste treatment facility, on farmland, is a conditional use. He noted that the Wilbur site, off the freeway north of Roseburg, which is approved and upheld by the Courts as a solid waste facility, is approved as a conditional use on farm-use land.

Brown responded to questions by council regarding interim costs, and explained that this information has not been provided to the council, as staff as not determined these as yet. She stated that expenses can be gathered based on costs to date, as well as time frames and interim costs.

Laws noted his understanding that the two other permits, as explained by Nolte, would require the City to show the need, as well as the inability to dispose of effluent in another way. He questioned if the City would be prohibited from using the hillside for land application should they be unable to prove the point.

Wheeldon asked if the City was boxed into disposing at the WWTP, what would it mean to the neighborhood? Brown stated there are two oxidation ditches on-site now, and building a much-needed third ditch would use all available space at the site. More than likely property would need to be purchased from Parks. Eimstad clarified the original plan has the plant expanding over time beyond the footprint of the existing site toward the wetlands. The original intent was to keep future expansion within the footprint, but if more biosolids treatment is brought to the site more land would inevitably be needed. Wheeldon asked just how close the buildings are to adjacent residential property lines. Brown stated the area was to be landscaped, but the new buildings will be in the space now. However, there will be trees and bushes along the perimeter to mask the facility. Eimstad stated a stretch of gravel is planned between the fence and the facility.

Nolte responded to questions by the council regarding the Food & Beverage Tax, and explained that it would not need to go back to the voters in order to be increased again, that could have initially been imposed without a vote. He further explained that it would only require the council to follow the procedure of amending the ordinance in order to increase the tax. Shaw explained that the community was asked to approve a 1% Food and Beverage Tax for acquisition of future Park land, which could be increased to 5%, and then all the remaining funds going toward the WWTP. Shaw stated that there was an agreement with the voters, whether it was required to submit this to the voters or not, and that the council would be remiss to not submit it to the voters again if an increase was necessary. Reid commented on how the tax has grown each year and is beyond what was predicted to meet the needs. She feels that the council does not have a choice regarding the options and that it will mean an increase in the Food and Beverage Tax. Wheeldon commented that, the difference between an initial $6 million project and then a $17 million dollar end project, warrants questioning the funding.

Reid suggested staff provide a map showing the WWTP and surrounding public land, indicating to the council where public property boundaries end and residential property begins. Laws noted that staff had stated there is a 50-foot landscaped area as an odor buffer and added his concern for WWTP buildings placed near the border.

Brown continued response to questions regarding landfill day cover, explaining that the landfill’s minimum requirement would be a stabilized Class B, that the cost for dumping would be slightly less expensive, but the cost for hauling the material would still exist.

Brown explained that by using all available space within the current footprint for the plant, there is nothing for the future; however, the size of the plant could be increased by purchasing land from Parks. She continued to note that plans are currently telescoping twenty years into the future for the plant and the focus is on using only the current site which reduces the time line to ten to fifteen years.

Laws noted that representatives from Clearwater were in attendance, and that he would like to hear about the costs they had estimated for their system. In addition, he would like Eimstad and Brown to review Clearwater’s costs for comparison. Eimstad stated Carollo had put centrifuge and belt-press units into several plants in Oregon, and offered to arrange tours of the facilities. Laws stated he does not question Carollo’s expertise, but is looking for a comparison.

Brian Thompson/Clearwater Technologies/Grants Pass/ Stated that the original plan was to truck effluent materials to Grants Pass for processing, but that it was determined the hauling costs were prohibitive. Clearwater is now offering to build a facility on-site for the City of Ashland.

Cal Martin/Clearwater Technologies/Medford/Clarified that the Clearwater Technology equipment is neither a centrifuge nor a belt-press. Whereas a centrifuge or belt-press are able to de-water to a 30% solid, Clearwater is able to achieve a 70% solid mix. The reduction in water content cuts down on odors, and the entire operation is inside a building, making the surrounding neighborhood odor-free. A building of slightly more than 3,000 square feet would house the entire operation and processing 40,000 gallons of 1% effluent could be processed in one 8-hour shift. At a 70% solid base, the drying period is extremely short, and the pasteurization process is rapid and inexpensive. The resultant material is a Class A biosolids, which can be used anywhere.

Thompson explained the building and machinery together would cost less than $1 million. Laws asked what would happen should the machinery break down. Thompson stated if the City is using a belt-press now, and it breaks down, there has to be holding tanks on the site and these same tanks could be used for the Clearwater machinery. Thompson explained the machine built for Ashland would be larger, taking a larger volume of material and that the machinery works with a continuous flow of materials. He further explained it is a vacuum system and offered a tour to staff and Carollo Engineers.

Katherine Iverson/1720 N. Mountain Ave/Stated that she had attended the May 19, council meeting where Brown stated she wanted to put Class A biosolids on the hillside at a lower cost than Class B biosolids. Iverson quoted from minutes of the May 19, meeting "Hauck motioned that we accept staff recommendation and use City property for the disposal of Class A biosolids." Iverson felt that this clearly indicated that Class A biosolids would be put on the hillside, not created there. In addition, the DEQ and Brown have stated odors will be created in the process of reducing Class B effluent to Class A as it is classified as a "farm animal" smell. Iverson commented on how odors are spread directly toward residential areas and the microscopic pathogens, which travel upon dust particles in the air. She noted the research regarding health hazards of Class B sludge, and the Science Committee of the US House of Representatives hearings on the EPA sludge. She noted comments from The Office of the Inspector General of the EPA audit report of March 20, 2000 on the subject of biosolids management enforcement, which was very critical of EPA’s sludge policy. Iverson stated the land-application proposal from the City is a low-tech solution in an age of more efficient, more economical high-tech solutions and is not acceptable to the citizens of Ashland or to the neighbors outside the City limits.

William Craven/68 E. Main Street/Raised his concern on rain causing Class A effluent to return to a Class B state. He also understood Class A sludge would be piped to the hillside, not Class B sludge that would be turned into Class A. He raised concerns about the impartiality of the engineers developing the plan. Heavy metals entering the sewer system from city streets will also end up on the hillside eventually through the sludge. Fine clarified storm water from city streets does not end up in the city sewer system, but is piped to a separate site. Craven concluded by putting the size of the hillside in perspective. It is 855 acres, 1/5 size of Ashland, twenty-five times larger than Lithia Park, and approximately the same size as Central Park in New York City.

Jonah Bornstein/404 Wilson/Asked if an elevation plan has been made of the site and noted the importance of knowing what kind of excavation and roads would be needed in order to use the hillside. Before a vote can be made, council needs to know how the hillside will be altered.

Harry Cook/710 River Rock/Objected to the way the discussion had been kept from public participation and stated that the only notice he had seen, was in the council agenda, and it is listed as only an update. He is concerned that the general public has not been made privy to the whole issue. He thinks the best option is to haul the effluent away.

Janice Gabriel/404 Wilson/Finds it ironic that Brown wants a decision right away even though Nolte has said there will be a two-year litigation holding up plans. It is also ironic how the City is willing to send Class B sludge up a steep hillside to lagoons where wind and rain can send it back down on the city, and yet still be so concerned about the color people paint their homes.

Larry Bradford/720 Meadowlark Way/Spoke on behalf of the Mountain Meadows Home Association (150 people). He worked on the Water Board in Mendocino City during their water treatment issues and although they built a state-of-the-art plant near the ocean, breezes sent odors into the city. In the end, it cost them more money because biosolids had to be trucked away. He is not as concerned about the smell as he is about future issues resulting from the decision to use the hillside and urged council to look for another solution.

Evan Archerd/1256Eagle Mill Road/Reported that his house overlooks the plant, and is across the freeway from the proposed site. Over the last five years, the politics and science of biosolids has changed. Everyone used to think that biosolid production was the best answer, but now science is saying it is not a good idea. He spoke to Ron Ebert at LCDC, and he said both the LCDC and the Department of Agriculture are adamant against application on EFU land. It is quite possible representatives from these groups will come to Medford to oppose this at the county level. He handed out a report from USA Today newspaper showing the CDC is against land-application of biosolids on farmland. He feels there is no choice in this matter. There is no legal or political way to put the biosolids on the hillside without an unbelievable fight. The only choice now is how to treat the material economically and efficiently on the present site.

Chuck Parlier/6801 Irish Lane/Encouraged the council to consider Clearwater Technology’s system as it seems to be state-of-the-art technology. He noted that Class B sludge has been banned in other areas, and he hates to see this issue dragged on further.

Larry Cooper/223 Fifth Street/Thinks that the cost analysis of the alternatives is incomplete. Estimation of the 20-year cost of each alternative based on the capital, operation, and maintenance costs, shows ongoing change is left out. New technology is developed all the time. He felt that a more reasonable solution is drying on the site and trucking it away. A five-year commitment is more reasonable, and allows for the review of other options. Cooper urged council to take things slowly, and avoid using the hillside as an option.

Brown clarified the City is dumping sludge at Dry Creek, which is a new facility.

Fine requested additional clarification on three issues: the prospect of odors emanating from the site; the position that the Department of Agriculture has taken on land-application of biosolids; and of the 95% of Oregon communities land-applying, how many are converting Class B to Class A. He further questioned if it were possible for wind and rain to return the Class A to Class B.

Eimstad explained that the potential for odors when going from Class B to Class A being likely, especially when pumping it onto the ground. He added that he thought the council was clear regarding the past, about pumping Class B effluent up the hillside and converting it to Class A before land applying, and apologized for the mix-up. He explained the product, which is piped up the hill, is stabilized, but there still is a small potential for odor. Eimstad stated that he is not an odor expert, especially as smell is relative.

Brown stated less than 100 acres of the hillside would be used for drying beds and allows for rotation.

Nolte noted that in Polk County, the land-application of biosolids is considered to be treated effluent, not farm use. He further clarified that there is no opposition in naming it a utility facility, necessary for public service. That because this is being done by a municipality, it is not farm use and in line with the Oregon Statutory definition of a farm use. Nolte explained that under a conditional use permit, the whole plant could be moved there. Nolte explained for the council, that direct land application of liquid biosolids, used to be routinely allowed, but because of the publicity, now it is referred to a process, meaning the county has to make a determination in each case that the land is for farm use.

Eimstad clarified for the council that he is not familiar with the Clearwater technology in its entirety, but is aware that the technology has been used. He stated that he is has not seen a written proposal from Clearwater, and would be difficult to evaluate the process without first seeing a proposal. Eimstad agreed to evaluate a proposal if requested by the City to do so. He stated that it is important to evaluate the merits of dewatering the effluent at the plant versus simply hauling it away for disposal. That you need to question what the tradeoffs for operational costs, hauling, storing, and taking advantage of existing space is for new equipment.

Eimstad explained the current process is not a long-term solution, but more of a six-month solution. He stated that there is a piece of expensive equipment exposed to the elements, there is no control for odors, and it is not a good long-term solution. Eimstad explained that if the council decided to wait and see what new technology was raised in the next five years, that the plant could be brought up to DEQ standards long enough to last through the waiting period. He suggested that if it is going to be two or more years, it is important to invest in a "good neighbor" odor management modification. Eimstad stated the aerobic digester has been modified to provide lime stabilization, a building needs to be built to house the belt-press, centrifuge, or whatever option is chosen, and the resultant material could be hauled to the landfill. Brown directed the council to Option 3, which is similar to the idea Eimstad has described.

Laws noted Option 2 is a $4.8 million project, and he felt this is too much money to invest for a temporary solution. He noted Option 3 adds another $100,000 a year to turn the sludge into a Class B product. He felt that if the council chose this as a temporary solution, the building should be the lowest cost and still contain odors. Eimstad clarified that the closest example of a community with Class B product is the lagoons in Medford.

Laws stated this is a controversial matter nationwide and that Carollo Engineers does not have any expertise in this area. He commented on the amount of disagreement, as well as lawsuits, by the people exposed to Class B sludge. He noted that he had not seen anything directly related to health hazards in regards to lagoons. Laws noted that he CDC and scientists within the EPA have expressed their concern about the potential of pathogens being carried in the air, water, ground, and insects. However, there have been no convincing studies proving there has been any outbreaks of disease.

Fine requested that staff and Carollo Engineers evaluate the plan offered by Clearwater, as it provides a plan that may be less expensive than the developed plans. Eimstad suggested that the City request proposals from contractors to provide services as this would give the City the ability to request specific information, check for bonding, etc. Brown commented on her discomfort of accepting a plan without making a list of the City’s expectations. She stated, if the council wanted to go with the plan to build a building, a Request for Proposal should be put out in order to receive solid cost factors. Brown further explained the plans brought forward are engineer estimates, not construction or contractor’s estimates.

Shaw raised her concern that the council is asking staff for an expensive solution, which may not be the best answer in the long run. Fine voiced his concern that the council has all alternatives before making any decisions, and that staff is the most capable for gathering information for further examination. Reid commented on how uncomfortable she was with application on the hillside and the possibility of two years of litigation. She requested that staff and council to move ahead to find another solution.

Councilors Reid/Hanson m/s to instruct staff to solve the wastewater issue without using the hillside as an option. Roll Call Vote: Wheeldon, Hanson, Reid, Laws, Yes; Fine, Hauck, NO. Motion passed 4-2.

Brown clarified that future plans will include options other than hillside application and that staff will re-evaluate the plan to include interim, on-site, low-cost options for direct landfill or processing to Class A or Class B fertilizer. Eimstad stated staff could do a break down illustrating the options at different cost levels, as well as evaluating a variety of treatment options. Brown adding that the updated options would be available at the second meeting in November and clarified that all options would be considered.

Eimstad updated the council on the effluent treatment currently being used, explaining there are two units being piloted (US Filter Memcore and the Xenon Unit), which are fundamentally similar. Three runs have been performed, the first of which without alum addition, as staff was looking for a baseline for comparison. Alum dosages have now been underway, which is reducing phosphorus levels. Levels of alum are low, based on jar tests, but increases will rectify the situation. The next step is to push the membranes to full-stage design, making sure sizes are proper in order to handle the range of conditions. Based on the runs, staff should have a recommendation as to which unit is best suited for treating the City of Ashland’s wastewater. When tests are completed, a presentation will be made to the council.

5. Designation of voting delegate for National League of Cities meeting.

Hanson volunteered to be the delegate, with Reid as an alternate. Council agreed to accept them as delegates.

Councilors Fine/Reid m/s to continue meeting after 10 p.m.. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.


1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ashland reiterating its policy of relating the expenditure of monies for economic and cultural development to the Hotel/Motel (Transient Occupancy) Tax and repealing Resolution 98-23."

Scoles explained that the expenditure of monies is based on what is received and that this only appropriated when funding is available. He clarified that the City only pays the percentage based on the Resolution which is based on the actual receipts.

Councilors Fine/Hanson m/s to approve Resolution 2000-25. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Wheeldon, Fine, Hauck, Hanson and Reid, YES. Motion passed.

2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution to forward the nomination of the Ashland Skidmore-Academy Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places to the State Historic Preservation Office."

Councilors Reid/Fine m/s to approve Resolution #2000-23. Roll Call Vote: Fine, Reid, Hanson, Wheeldon, Hauck and Laws, YES. Motion passed.

3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution setting new fees for Planning/Community Development and Engineering."

Mark Knox of Community Development explained that the new schedule allows for the differentiation, but that the schedule also raised fees across the board. He noted that one item lowered, was the Accessory Residential Units as an affordable housing option.

Laws stated he has always been in favor of growth paying for itself and that progress has been made. He feels it should be fair and clear enough to understand and that long-range planning is beneficial to the entire community and should be paid for by all the citizens as a general fund expense. He questioned the Administration/Code Compliance/Other (24%), and felt that future planning should not be charged to current developers. Shaw disagreed, and stated that long-range planning is needed even if the city does not grow. Council engaged in a general discussion of current and future development of the City. Knox stated the new fees go into effect on November 20, 2000.

Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to approve Resolution #2000-24. Roll Call Vote: Fine, Reid, Hanson, Hauck, Laws and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed.

4. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance amending Section 14.08.030.C of the Ashland Municipal Code by removing the requirement for proximity to an existing sewer main before dwelling outside City Limits may be connected to City Sewer."

Councilors Laws/Fine m/s to approve first reading or ordinance and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Hanson, Hauck, Reid, Wheeldon, Laws and Fine, YES. Motion passed.


Meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.

Submitted by Michelle Cole, Assistant to the City Recorder

Online City Services

Pay Your Utility Bill
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2024 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top